![\"\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/5bc86a05fc7e9376078b45a5.jpg\")
<\/a>Russophobes spread lies and propaganda nonstop as Deep State<\/em> agents<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n by Eric Zuesse\u00a0 for The Saker Blog<\/p>\n THE FIRST ACCUSATION<\/strong>, which is the source of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, was in 2012 under U.S. President Barack Obama, and it alleged that Sergei Magnitsky had been a whistleblower in Russia who was a lawyer who uncovered corruption in Russia\u2019s Government and was imprisoned for that and beaten to death there for that.\u00a0Magnitsky was, in fact, no whistleblower, and no lawyer, but the accountant of American billionaire Bill Browder, who had been charged by the Russian Government (and who then fled Russia) as having tax-defrauded the Russian Government of $230 million. And, Magnitsky\u2019s death in prison was due to inadequate medical care of his pancreatitis by the medical personnel there, not (as Browder alleged) to any \u201cbeating.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n THE SECOND ACCUSATION<\/strong>, in 2014, is that\u00a0\u201cRussia stole Crimea.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0This charge is the source of additional (and more severe) sanctions against Russis, and also of NATO\u2019s massing of troops and weapons on and near Russia\u2019s border, which are massed there allegedly to \u2018protect\u2019 European nations against\u00a0\u2018Russian aggression\u2019<\/a>\u00a0(such as\u00a0\u2018seizing Crimea\u2019<\/a>). It\u2019s all\u00a0founded on basic lies regarding Crimea and Ukraine<\/a>. A fuller presentation of that case is\u00a0here<\/a>. But what constitutes the most remarkable evidence of all in this entire matter are two crucial phone-conversations. The first is the 27 January 2014 phone-conversation whereby the chief agent, Victoria Nuland, whom Obama had assigned to organize the\u00a0coup<\/a>\u00a0to overthrow Ukraine\u2019s democratically elected President Victor Yanukovych, gave the order as to whom Yanukovych\u2019s replacement would be. This call is grossly misrepresented if not entirely ignored by the U.S. regime\u2019s \u2018journalists\u2019 and \u2018historians\u2019. Nuland famously said there \u201cFuck the EU\u201d (for the EU\u2019s wanting a more moderate and less-nazi alternative to be selected). That much of the call was reported in the Western press (though with virtually no context as to what it meant and why she had said it), but the rest \u2014\u00a0the historically crucial part of it<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 wasn\u2019t. This historically mega-important phone-call, which was posted to the internet a week later, on\u00a0February 4th<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 three weeks before the man whom she named there received (just as she had instructed) the appointment to lead the post-coup Ukraine \u2014 isn\u2019t even being denied by Washington. Instead, it\u2019s either ignored by them, or else totally misrepresented, in the \u2018historical\u2019 accounts by the agents of the U.S. regime<\/a>.<\/p>\n Especially remarkable about this phone-conversation, to select Ukraine\u2019s new leader, is that it wasn\u2019t between Ukrainians, but was instead between two Americans, selecting the person who would soon be appointed by the U.S. regime to rule Ukrainians; it actually obliterated Ukrainian national sovereignty. Nuland told Pyatt not to appoint the moderate Vitally Klitschko, the EU\u2019s favorite, to become Ukraine\u2019s new leader, but instead to appoint the\u00a0rabidly anti-Russian Arseniy Yatsenyuk<\/a>. Here, then, is the most crucial part of this historically crucial\u00a0phone-conversation<\/a>, the instruction she gave there that set \u201cthe New Cold War\u201d \u2014 the movement toward World War III \u2014 overtly into motion (after\u00a0its covert start on the night of 24 February 1990<\/a>):<\/p>\n Nuland: \u2026 Yats is the guy who\u2019s got the economic experience the governing experience; he\u2019s the\u2026 what he needs is Klitsch\u00a0<\/em>[the leading moderate]\u00a0and Tiahnybok\u00a0<\/em>[an admirer of Hitler]\u00a0on the outside; he\u00a0<\/em>[Yats]\u00a0needs to be talking to them four times a week you know. I just think Klitch going in, he\u2019s going to be, at that level, working for Yatsenyuk; it\u2019s just not going to work.<\/em><\/p>\n Pyatt: Yeah<\/em>\u00a0[you\u2019re right], no<\/em>\u00a0[I was wrong to think that Klitschko should become the new ruler], I think that\u2019s right. Ok. Good.<\/em><\/p>\n Then, she referred, in the call, to her agent (just like she was Obama\u2019s agent), Jeff Feltman, who had been assigned to persuade the\u00a0U.N.\u2019s Ban ki-Moon and his envoy handling Ukraine \u2014 who was Holland\u2019s former Ambassador to Ukraine, the anti-Russian and pro-American Robert Serry<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 to go along with the U.S., in this context:<\/p>\n I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning; he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry; did I write you that this morning?<\/em><\/p>\n Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.<\/em><\/p>\n Nuland: Ok. He\u2019s now gotten both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. That would be great, I think, to help glue this thing, and to have the UN help glue it, and, you know, fuck the EU.<\/em><\/p>\n Feltman chose\u00a0Serry to become officially appointed on 5 March 2014 by Ban ki-Moon<\/a>\u00a0to \u201cmediate the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.\u201d (Whether Russia\u2019s President Vladimir Putin ever knew that the U.N.\u2019s\u00a0 \u2018mediator\u2019 had been chosen by Obama\u2019s people, is unknown; presumably, he knew of the Nuland-Pyatt phone-conversation; but certainly Russia\u2019s U.N. Ambassador,\u00a0Vitaly Churkin, wasn\u2019t comfortable about Serry\u2019s representing the U.N.<\/a>\u00a0on this matter; and\u00a0Crimeans also were outright hostile toward Serry<\/a>.)<\/p>\n In other words: this was a set-up deal, set up in Washington, to create \u2014 and with the U.N.\u2019s acceptance \u2014 a rabidly anti-Russian government, right on Russia\u2019s doorstep, in adjoining Ukraine. Would the U.N. have accepted Russia\u2019s replacing Mexico\u2019s Government in a bloody coup and installing a rabidly anti-U.S. regime there? Did the U.S. in 1962 accept Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, which is 100 miles away from the U.S.? Of course not. Why should Russia do that, in 2014 \u2014 or ever?<\/p>\n Then, in\u00a0a phone-call on February 26th<\/a>, occurred the second important item of evidence. The foreign-affairs chief of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, was confidentially informed by her investigator, Urmas Paet, that the new Government in Ukraine was not actually the result of what the democratically elected Government had done, but was instead a coup by \u201cthe new coalition\u201d government that had just succeeded at overthrowing the elected Government. This is from\u00a0the transcript<\/a>:<\/p>\n What was quite disturbing, the same oligarch\u00a0<\/em>[Poroshenko \u2014 and so when he then became Ukraine\u2019s President three months later, he already knew this]\u00a0told that well, all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets,\u00a0<\/em>[this will shock Ashton, who thought that Yanukovych had masterminded the killings] that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides [so, Poroshenko himself knows that his regime is based on a false-flag U.S.-controlled coup d\u2019etat against his predecessor, Yanukovych \u2014 and he even said as much]<\/p>\n Well, that\u2019s yes, \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n So that and then she\u00a0<\/em>[Dr. Olga Bolgomets]\u00a0also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can, you know, say that it\u2019s the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it\u2019s really disturbing that now the new coalition that they don\u2019t want to investigate, what exactly happened; so that now there is stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Notice here that Paet had tactfully avoided saying that Ashton\u2019s assumption that it had been Yanukovych was false; instead, he totally ignored her having suggested that, and he here simply said that the evidence went totally in the opposite direction, the direction that Poroshenko himself knew to be true, that the guilty party was \u201cthe new coalition,\u201d which Paet said nothing about, and Ashton asked him no questions about it or about what country had actually organized it. Ashton responded:<\/p>\n I think that we do want to investigate.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n That sentiment on her part lasted, however, only about one second.<\/p>\n I mean I didn\u2019t pick that up, that\u2019s interesting. Gosh?\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Ashton here seemed to have felt outright embarrassed, and she thus ended in a \u201cGosh\u201d that was almost inaudible, as if a question, and then she immediately proceeded simply to ignore this crucial matter entirely. All of the evidence suggests that she was exceedingly reluctant to believe that in the overthrow, the bad guys had actually been on the\u00a0anti<\/em>-Yanukovych side. The overthrow of Yanukovych has since been called\u00a0\u201cthe most blatant coup in history\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n On the day when the coup peaked, 20 February 2014, there was an event which turned the residents of Crimea even more against the overthrow-Yanukovych demonstrators than Crimeans already were (and Crimea had voted over 75% for Yanukovych, so they were strongly against this overthrow): it was\u00a0\u201cThe Anti-Crimean Pogrom that Sparked Crimea\u2019s Breakaway\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n Almost immediately after Yatsenyuk became the leader of Ukraine, he sacked the existing three Deputy Defense Ministers,\u00a0on March 5th<\/a>, and replaced them with three rabidly anti-Russian neo-Nazis, who were committed to his bombing-policy, to eliminate enough Yanukovych-voters so that the new Government, in future elections, would be able to be a continuation of Yatsenyuk\u2019s instead of a restoration of the one that had preceded Yatsenyuk\u2019s. The person who was made the\u00a0Minister of Defense<\/a>, Mikhail Koval, announced his intention\u00a0to ethnically cleanse from southeastern Ukraine the \u201csubhumans\u201d who voted for Yanukovych, who will \u201cbe resettled in other regions,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0meaning either Russia (if Russia accepts these Ukrainian refugees) or else concentration-camps inside Ukraine (and then perhaps death). \u201cThere will be a thorough filtration of people.\u201d (That English translation has since been taken down; so, instead, try\u00a0this<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0this<\/a>.) Their property will be confiscated, and\u00a0\u201cLand parcels will be given out for free to the servicemen of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and other military formations, as well as to the employees of Interior Ministry and the Security Service of Ukraine that are defending territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country in eastern and southeastern regions of Ukraine.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0That\u2019s the euphemism for\u00a0the ethnic cleansing, and mass-theft, which followed<\/a>. And here is\u00a0more<\/a>\u00a0of that, and\u00a0more<\/a>, and\u00a0more<\/a>, of this U.S.-imposed nazism. In other words, Obama\u2019s rulers of Ukraine were rewarding ethnic-cleansing, and were offering their soldiers the opportunity to grab legally the property of their victims.<\/p>\n On 15 November 2017, two of the foreign mercenaries who had served as snipers in the Ukrainian coup\u00a0confessed on Italian television<\/a>\u00a0and described how they had come to be hired for the job, by Mikheil Saakashvili (who is a U.S. Deep State asset).<\/p>\n The result of the U.S. regime\u2019s takeover of Ukraine\u2019s Government is\u00a0this<\/a>. And\u00a0a generation of young Ukrainians are now being taught nazism<\/a>, right on the border of Russia \u2014 Russia being\u00a0the one country that in World War II had done the most to conquer the Nazis<\/a>. The U.S. Government has flipped to\u00a0pro<\/em>-nazi. And\u00a0time<\/a>\u00a0after\u00a0time<\/a>\u00a0after\u00a0time<\/a>, the U.S. leads the three-or-fewer nations that vote at the U.N.\u00a0against<\/em>\u00a0condemning nazism. That\u2019s right: America, which under President FDR had fought\u00a0against<\/em>\u00a0the Nazis and the other fascist regimes, now\u00a0was and is<\/em>\u00a0itself the world\u2019s leading racist-fascist, or ideologically nazi (but this time mainly against Russians, instead of mainly against Jews), regime, itself. (In fact, today\u2019s America is allied with the\u00a0ideologically racist-fascist, or nazi, anti-Palestinian, Israeli regime<\/a>. And, it\u2019s allied also with the nazi \u2014 but anti-Shiite<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 Saud\u00a0regime<\/a>, which was\u00a0founded in 1744 on the basis of hating Shiites<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Ukraine\u2019s economy was destroyed by the U.S.-imposed Ukrainian regime. Until around 2013, Ukraine\u2019s economy was fairly stable, but then the coup-operation,\u00a0which had begun in Washington in 2011, for regime-change in both Ukraine and Syria<\/a>, culminated successfully in Ukraine in February 2014. Ukraine\u2019s national debt then nearly quadrupled, between 2013 and 2017, while Ukraine\u2019s GDP simultaneously declined 39%:<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.statista.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n Ukraine: National debt from 2012 to 2017 (in billion U.S. dollars)<\/p>\n 2012=20.14<\/p>\n 2013=22.67<\/p>\n 2014=42.61<\/p>\n 2015=60.24<\/p>\n 2016=73.94<\/p>\n 2017=83.96<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.statista.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n Ukraine: GDP from 2012 to 2017<\/p>\n 2012=175.71<\/p>\n 2013=179.57<\/p>\n 2014=132.34<\/p>\n 2015=90.94<\/p>\n 2016=93.26<\/p>\n 2017=109.32<\/p>\n Because of what the U.S. regime did to Ukraine, Ukraine now has vastly higher debt, and also significantly reduced GDP from which to pay it. Nothing about this operation was at all democratic. The\u00a0opposition<\/em>\u00a0to this operation was democratic. That\u2019s not to say the crowd who had campaigned at the Maidan Square against Ukraine\u2019s endemic corruption were anti-democratic, but that their leaders were \u2014 and so Ukraine is even more corrupt now than it was under Yanukovych. Four days before the Nuland-anointed Yatsenyuk left Ukraine\u2019s Government, he tweeted on 10 April 2016,\u00a0\u201cI thank the colleagues who\u2019ve acted honestly and selflessly. The last 2 Govs [his and Poroshenkos] were unique. They were the first manifestations of New Ukraine.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Look at the heap of contempt which his former\u00a0followers<\/em>heaped there upon that tweet. The pro-U.S.-regime site Euractive noted on that same day, that\u00a0\u201chis party\u2019s approval rating has slumped to just two percent\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and blamed it not on his ethnic-cleansing campaign and his sinking his country into hock to foreign investors in order to fund that war against the regions that had voted 90% for Yanukovych, but instead mainly \u201cbecause of the painful transition away from a state-sustained economy\u201d \u2014 not enough privatization, not\u00a0enough<\/em>\u00a0graft for insider-investors to have been able to suck Ukrainians even drier than they\u2019ve done.<\/p>\n All indications<\/a>\u00a0are that, right after the February 2014 coup,\u00a0over 90% of Crimeans wanted to become Russians again, and that over 90% are happy today to be Russians again<\/a>\u00a0(which Crimea had been until 1954 when the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine). But the U.S. regime and its allies demand that Crimeans be taken over by the nazi racist anti-Russian and\u00a0anti-Crimean<\/a>\u00a0regime the U.S. installed in Ukraine. The right of self-determination of peoples is honored (at least verbally) in The West for Spain\u2019s Catalonians and for UK\u2019s Scotts, but\u00a0not at all for Crimeans<\/a>, whom The West is instead determined to, essentially, destroy, by diktat (which is what the U.S.-imposed Ukrainian regime\u00a0wants to do to Crimeans<\/a>).<\/p>\n Instead of \u201cPutin seized Crimea,\u201d the reality is:\u00a0Obama seized Ukraine<\/a>. Crimeans\u00a0rejected his seizure<\/a>. \u201cPutin seized Crimea\u201d is lie #2.<\/p>\n THE THIRD ACCUSATION<\/strong>\u00a0is that Russia\u2019s Government, if not Putin himself, surreptitiously disclosed through \u201chacks\u201d supplied to Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton\u2019s and her campaign\u2019s emails, and that Russia otherwise also campaigned, via Facebook ads, to make Donald Trump win against Hillary Clinton. Wikileaks said that the emails actually arrived via leaks not hacks, and that the leaks were from inside the Democratic Party, not from anyone outside the United States. Regarding the Facebook ads, the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0on 20 September 2018, bannered a 9,700-word article,\u00a0\u201cThe Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far\u201d<\/a>, and buried 92% of the way through it, as merely a clause in a sentence, the crucial fact that \u201cno public evidence has emerged showing that his [Trump\u2019s] campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money.\u201d\u00a0 This startlingly anomalous declaration by their reporters was publicly noted to\u00a0be<\/em>\u00a0anomalous, on the very same day as the article was published, when the \u201cMoon of Alabama\u201d blogger headlined\u00a0\u201cNYT Admits That Its \u2018Mountain of Evidence\u2019 For Russian Collusion Is Smaller Than A Molehill\u201d<\/a>. Then, on October 1st appeared, from the \u201cAlternative Insight\u201d blogger,\u00a0\u201cThe New York Times Plots the 2016 Election\u201d<\/a>, opening:<\/p>\n The article starts with<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cON AN OCTOBER AFTERNOON BEFORE THE 2016 ELECTION, a huge banner was unfurled from the Manhattan Bridge in New York City: Vladimir V. Putin against a Russian-flag background\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The paragraph ends with<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cIn November, shortly after Donald J. Trump eked out a victory that Moscow had worked to assist, an even bigger banner appeared.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Note that before any facts are presented, the reader is confronted with a conclusion \u201cMoscow had worked to assist\u201d in Trump\u2019s victory.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cPolice never identified who had hung the banners, but there were clues. The earliest promoters of the images on Twitter were American-sounding accounts, including @LeroyLovesUSA, later exposed as Russian fakes operated from St. Petersburg to influence American voters.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Although described \u201cas Russian fakes operated from St. Petersburg to influence American voters,\u201d the banners had nothing to do with the election, and the second banner was unfurled after the election. Why conclude they are Russian fakes? Could not these individuals be operating similar to many persons who have Facebook accounts, hiding their real names when commenting on controversial issues? How do a few unknown persons, supposedly living in St. Petersburg, suddenly morph into \u201cThe Kremlin?\u201d How could, \u201cThe banners be intended as visual victory laps?\u201d How is this, \u201cthe most effective foreign interference in an American election in history?\u201d A succeeding paragraph proves the article is a bundle of unproven statements. Before presenting any facts, and using conjecture, other conclusions are impressed into the readers\u2019 minds.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cBut to travel back to 2016 and trace the major plotlines of the Russian attack is to underscore what we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n What are \u201cthe major plotlines,\u201d of what \u201cRussian attack,\u201d that makes it certain that \u201cThe Russians carried out a landmark (ED: Why landmark?) intervention?\u201d And, then, on November 2nd, appeared, from Gareth Porter, at Consortium News, a total mathematical disproof of the\u00a0Times<\/em>\u2019s central allegation \u2014 of \u201cThe Times<\/em>\u2018\u00a0claim last month<\/a>\u00a0that Russian Facebook posts reached nearly as many Americans as actually voted in the 2016 election.\u201d He headlined\u00a0\u201c33 Trillion More Reasons Why The New York Times Gets it Wrong on Russia-gate\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and displayed the mathematical impossibility of what the Facebook-ads hypothesis (which was accepted unquestioningly by the\u00a0Times<\/em>) asserts. He also exposed that the Facebook-ads hypothesis is based on misrepresenting what Facebook had actually asserted:<\/p>\n The newspaper said: \u201cEven by the vertiginous standards of social media, the reach of their effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of\u00a0126 million Americans\u00a0on Facebook alone.\u201d\u00a0The paper argued that 126 million\u00a0was \u201cnot far short of the\u00a0137 million people\u00a0who would vote in the 2016 presidential election.\u201d \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n The newspaper failed to tell their readers that Facebook account holders in the United States had been \u201cserved\u201d 33 trillion Facebook posts during that same period \u2014 413 million times more than the 80,000 posts from the Russian company.<\/em><\/p>\n What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 31, 2017 is a far cry from what the Times claims. \u201cOur best estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served one of these [private Russian company, Internet Research Agency, \u2018IRA\u2019-generated] stories at some time during the two year period,\u201d Stretch said.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established fact. He said an estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at least one story from the IRA \u2013- not over the ten week election period, but over 194 weeks during the two years 2015 through 2017\u2014including a full year after the election.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n That means only an estimated 29 million FB users may have gotten at least one story in their feed in two years. The 126 million figure is based only on an assumption that they shared it with others, according to Stretch.<\/em><\/p>\n Facebook didn\u2019t even claim most of those 80,000 IRA posts were election\u2013related. It offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million people were.<\/em><\/p>\n In addition, Facebook\u2019s Vice President for News Feed, Adam Moseri,\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>acknowledged in 2016<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that FB subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA stories that actually make it into a subscriber\u2019s news feed on any given day are actually read.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n And now, according to the further research, the odds that Americans saw any of these IRA ads\u2014let alone were influenced by them\u2014are even more astronomical. In his Oct. 2017 testimony, Stretch said that from 2015 to 2017, \u201cAmericans using Facebook were exposed to, or \u2018served,\u2019 a total of over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n To put the 33 trillion figure over two years in perspective, the 80,000 Russian-origin Facebook posts represented just .0000000024 of total Facebook content in that time.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Shane and Mazzetti did not report the 33 trillion number<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0even though The New York Times\u2019 own coverage of that 2017 Stretch testimony\u00a0<\/em>explicitly stated<\/em><\/a>, \u201cFacebook cautioned that the Russia-linked posts represented a minuscule amount of content compared with the billions of posts that flow through users\u2019 News Feeds everyday.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The Times\u2018 touting of the bogus 126 million out 137 million voters, while not reporting the 33 trillion figure, should vie in the annals of journalism as one of the most spectacularly misleading uses of statistics of all time.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The U.S. Government routinely interferes in elections all over the world, but builds mountains out of molehills of \u2018evidence\u2019 to charge that Russia\u2019s Government is the global threat to democracy, and especially to America\u2019s (fake)\u00a0\u2018democracy\u2019<\/a>. And that\u2019s lie #3.<\/p>\n And, of course, the U.S. regime also had lied its way into invading Iraq in 2003, and lies today to allege that \u201cIran<\/a>\u00a0is the top state-sponsor of\u00a0terrorism<\/a>\u201d and so much else; so that anyone who still trusts what the U.S. regime says, would have to be a fool. The\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0(which participated so prominently in stenographically spreading\u00a0the U.S. regime\u2019s lies about Iraq in 2002 and 2003<\/a>) is, no less now than it was then, an ongoing insult to the intelligence of its subscribers, but this time spreading lies especially against Russia. The newspaper\u2019s subscribers didn\u2019t cancel their subscriptions in revolt; that newspaper remains very successful, as if routinely lying to \u2018justify\u2019 invasion is okay.<\/p>\n The U.S. public believe the same \u2018news\u2019-media which had lied America into earlier invasions and mass-murders \u2014 wars and coups. it\u2019s all of the U.S. major \u2018news\u2019-media, and most even of the \u2018alternative\u2019 ones (but certainly not the one you\u2019re reading here). That\u2019s why, when Trump\u2019s U.N. Ambassador, Nikki Haley, on 5 April 2018, addressed students at Duke University, and said (at 46:50 in\u00a0the video<\/a>) \u201cRussia\u2019s never going to be our friend,\u201d she wasn\u2019t booed by anybody. And she\u00a0continued<\/a>, \u201cYou haven\u2019t seen the end of what this administration will do to Russia.\u201d In other words: she preached that hostility toward \u201cRussia\u201d is \u2018good\u2019. The students and the faculty seemed totally supportive of her nationalistic holier-than-thou lying pontifications. All of the questions, which were asked of her, presumed to be true all of the lies that she had stated against Russia, and against\u00a0Bashar al-Assad<\/a>\u00a0and so much else. She easily fooled these people, because all of the major media already had fooled them, just like had been done about Iraq in 2002 and 2003. Fools never really learn, because they always already \u2018know\u2019 (the lies).<\/p>\n
\nThese lines are followed by leaps into fantasy.
\n\u201cThe Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\nWhere has there been any evidence of \u201cActing on the personal animus of Mr. Putin?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n